Mitchell v. United States, 386 U.S. 972 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Mitchell v. United States, 386 U.S. 972 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chatman v. Hall (nj, 1992-06-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Chatman v. Hall (2×)
N.J. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Visidor Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside Park, 48 N.J. 214 , 225 A. 2d 105 (1966), cert. den., 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1166 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 132 (1969); Bergen v. Koppenal, 52 N.J. 478 , 246 A. 2d 442 (1968); Amelchenko v. Freehold Borough, 42 N.J. 541 , 201 A. 2d 726 (1964).
cited Cited "see" People v. Dilger
Ill. App. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Worley (1966), 35 Ill. 2d 574 , 221 N.E.2d 267 , cert, denied (1967), 386 U.S. 972 , 18 L.
cited Cited "see" People v. Dilger
Ill. App. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Worley (1966), 35 Ill.2d 574 , 221 N.E.2d 267 , cert. denied (1967), 386 U.S. 972 , 18 L.Ed.2d 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1163 ; People v. Benedetto (1981), 102 Ill.
discussed Cited "see" Birchwood Lakes Colony Club v. Medford Lakes
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Visidor Corp. v. Cliffside Park, 48 N.J. 214 , 217 (1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1166 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 132 (1967); Cloyes v. Delaware Tp., 23 N.J. 324 (1957); Clay v. Jersey City, 84 N.J.
cited Cited "see" Willis v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev.
N.J. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoy v. Capelli, 48 N.J. 81, 89 (1966), and Visidor Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside Park, 48 N.J. 214, 218-223 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1166 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 132 (1967).
cited Cited "see" Willis v. Department of Conservation & Economic Development
N.J. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoy v. Capelli, 48 N. J. 81, 89 (1966), and Visidor Corp. v. Borough of Cliff-side Park, 48 N. J. 214, 218-223 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 972 , 87 S. Ct. 1166 , 18 L.
cited Cited "see" Locks v. Laird
N.D. Cal. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mitchell v. United States, 369 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1966) cert. denied 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1162 , 18 L.Ed.2d 132 , rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. at 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1477 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 (1967).
cited Cited "see" Fahey v. City of Jersey City
N.J. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Visidor Corp. v. Cliffside Park, 48 N. J. 214, 224 (1966), certiorari denied 386 U. S. 972 (1967); Hoy v. Capelli, 48 N. J. 81 (1966); Amelchenko v. Freehold Borough, 42 N. J. 541, 555 (1964).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Timber Properties, Inc. v. Chester Tp.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Visidor v. Cliffside Park, 48 N.J. 214 (1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1166 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 132 (1967); Veling v. Ramsey, 94 N.J.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Norman J. Jacques
1st Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Mitchell, 369 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1162 , 18 L.Ed.2d 132 (1967).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Valentine
D.P.R. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Bolton, 192 F.2d 805, 806 (C.A. 2,1951); see also United States v. Mitchell, 369 F.2d 323, 324 (C.A.2, 1966), certiorari denied, 386 U.S. 972 , 87 S.Ct. 1162 , 18 L.Ed.2d 132 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Henry Mitchell, III
v.
United States
1012.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 5, 1967.
386 U.S. 972
Robert L. Bobrick for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
Douglas.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

See 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1477.

Robert L. Bobrick, for petitioner.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Petitioner did not report for induction as ordered, was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and his conviction was affirmed. 369 F. 2d 323. His defense was that.the “war” in Vietnam was being conducted in violation of various treaties to which we were a signatory, especially the Treaty of London of August 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, which in Article 6 (a) declares that “waging of a.war of aggression” is a “crime against peace” imposing “individual responsibility.” Article 8 provides:

“The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so .requires.”

[*973] Petitioner claimed that the “war” in Vietnam was a “war of- aggression” within the meaning of the Treaty of London and that Article 8 makes him responsible for participating in it even though he is ordered to do so.*

Mr. Justice Jackson, the United States prosecutor at Nuremberg, stated: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, - they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” (International Conference on Military Trials, Dept. of State Pub. No. 3080, p; 330.)

Article VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution states that “Treaties” are a part of the “supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”

There is a considerable body of opinion that our actions in Vietnam constitute the waging of an aggressive “war.”-

This case presents the questions:

(1) whether the Treaty of London, is a treaty within the meaning of Art. VI, cl. 2;

(2) whether the question as to the waging of an aggressive “war” is in the context of this criminal prosecution a justiciable question;

(3) whether the Vietnam episode is a “war” in the sense of the Treaty;

(4) whether petitioner, has standing to raise the question;

(5) whether, if he has, the Treaty may be tendered as a defense in this criminal case or in amelioration of the punishment.

These are extremely sensitive-and delicate questions. But they should, I think, be answered. Even those who[*974] think that the Nuremberg judgments were unconstitutional by our guarantee relating to ex post facto laws would have to take a different view of the Treaty of London that purports to lay down a standard of future conduct for all the signatories.

I intimate no opinion on the merits. But I think the petition for certiorari should be granted. Wé have here a. recurring question in present-day Selective Service cases.

The trial court charged the jury that the Treaty of London did not interfere “in any manner in respect to this defendant fulfilling his duty under this order.”